Several sources have pointed to the possibility that a major CIA gun-running operation aimed at arming anti-Assad Al-Qaeda-affiliated forces was in danger of being exposed. If true, the information casts an even more devastating pall over the Benghazi terrorist attack and the administration’s botched handling of the region.
The decision to stand down as the Benghazi terrorist attack was underway was met with extreme opposition from the inside. The Washington Times's James Robbins, citing a source inside the military, reveals that General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command, who got the same emails requesting help received by the White House, put a rapid response team together and notified the Pentagon it was ready to go. He was ordered to stay put. “His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow,” writes Robbins. “Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.”
If true, Ham has apparently decided he wants no part of the responsibility for the decision not to help those in harm’s way. He is not alone. As the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol revealed late Friday, a spokesperson, “presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus,” released the following statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”
October 29, 2012
"Over the weekend, the newest, and by far the most disturbing, revelations surrounding the Benghazi attack were revealed."
An item at FrontPageMag.com:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
309 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 309 of 309Scott M said...
Someone's brother was in the SF group Ham previously commanded and someone's brother still knows a lot of guys in that group. Said brother said that the story about Ham is accurate and further said there are worse details to come. Skype, however, isn't all that secure, so...
I really really hate this, but I agree with Freder. "Someones brother is smoking dope and spinning fantasies. Unless General Ham was assigned to some really spooky unit instead of the ones in his bio, Ham is a Mech infantry officer for his enire commissioned service. Nothing lite or SOF in his bio that I can see.
Roger, Ham is a white guy. The first CINC was Ward, a black O-10. A lite, but not SOF guy...
Continuing with my thoughts - the one person who could have made something happen on 9/11/11 was the President. He was informed of what was going on, and nothing happened, except that any attempts at rescue or the like, esp. by the military, were told to stand down.
Sen. McCain has been big in the news on this subject, and probably for good reason. Not only was he a former Naval officer, offered flag rank before his retirement, and comes from a family of distinguished Naval officers (who, like him, led from the front), but he also was President Obama's opponent four years ago. I think that he sees in this what he would privately call cowardice at the absolute highest levels of our government.
I don't think that Benghazi would have occurred under a President McCain, but if it had, I have expect that the U.S. military would have come in heavy. He would have given the orders himself, and watched it on TV in the situation room, all night if need be. And, taken the heat if too many innocent civilians died. And, I think that he would have canceled the fund raising event.
I don't think that George W. Bush would have reacted quite as strongly as McCain most likely would have, but have little doubt that an adequate amount of force would have been employed. And, he too would have spent the night in the situation room. If he needed to sleep the next day, AF-1 does have a bed. But, this was the President who (mostly) gave up golf when we went to war, because he couldn't see playing when he was asking others to risk their lives in war. So, I expect that he too would have canceled the fund raiser.
I think that this, in the end, is the smoking gun. The President, given the information in a timely manner, refused to act. He may have dithered, or he may have ordered the stand down. But, in either case, his failure to act was a proximate cause of the death of those four Americans. His primary duty as President is not to fundamentally change America, but rather to protect us from our enemies, and he failed to do so, for those four Americans, when it was easily in his power to do so. No one else had the power to do so, to nearly the extent that he did, and so trying to pretend that it was somehow the fault of the bureaucracy is pretty ridiculous. He had plenty of information in real time, and the decision was his to make. He didn't make it.
Obama has through Panetta offered the explantion that you do not put troops in harm's way without real time intelligence. I think that is a lame explanation and may not even be true. But the President should disclose whether he participated in that decision and agreed with it. I guess he will need to say yes, and I assume Panetta saying it was a trial balloon to see how it flied.
By the way, Panetta is obviously toast after the election.
Good account of an example of why Obama is so infuriating to me. He lies so effortlessly and repeatedly.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/omert-administration_657928.html?nopager=1
Not to mention something like they intend to print things that allows them to guide people to draw conclusions they want to have.
Yes, with an election coming up nothing like the pressing hard stories such as:
Crane Is Dangling Off Luxury High-Rise
Carrots Enjoy a Spike in Popularity
Random House and Penguin to Be Combined
Scientists Move Closer to Long-Lasting Flu Vaccine
G.O.P. Tries to Chip Away at Democrats’ Edge in Early Voting
Revisiting A Famous Meal, Soup to Nuts
Storm Prompts Candidates to Curtail Campaigns
Benghazi? Whaaaas that??? Nothing to see here folk. But MY GOD... a CRANE is dangling somewhere. Form your own opinion.
NY Times - tis a fine rag.
Special Forces is Airborne infantry with super human survival skills.
The special forces' Delta Force Command is its own secure Fort inside of an open to the public Fort Bragg located in eastern NC which is home to our only Parachute Infantry Division.
Delta was based in the old Ft Bragg Stockade...
Kansas City said...
By the way, Panetta is obviously toast after the election.
If we abandoned those men after their calls for aid, and it seams as though somebody did, the impact of the leadership failure will haunt the Army for years. I think that the professionals understand that.
If Obama wins a second term, Panetta has to go, Dempsey also. Things won't be fixed till at least we get a new POTUS. The Army will respect civilian orders, but it will be sullen. That is the only way to describe it. This is a bigger morale impact than watching helo's lift off the Saigon Embassy in '75.
Multiple General Officers may have obeyed their oaths to the Constitution, but at the same time, broke faith with their men.
It is huge
Coupled with our loss in A-Stan and our walking away from success in Iraq, we're rolling back morale to 1975.
huge
Obama has through Panetta offered the explantion that you do not put troops in harm's way without real time intelligence.
Agreed. Troops are routinely put in harm's way without real time intelligence, and it is likely that they had much more real time intelligence that afternoon and evening than the military often has had when troops are committed to action. They had drones overhead, along with email and phone conversations throughout the night. Apparently, there was no lack of communication between the Americans on the ground and their superiors elsewhere. And, if they needed more intel, they most likely could have gotten it (for one thing, my memory is that RF-4s were flown out of Italy, which isn't that far away for a supersonic jet - I am sure that their replacements are not that far away either). Indeed, coming into this sort of situation is just what the special operations troops that were standing by and ready to deploy are good at.
I agree - Panetta is toast. I expect that he will be up on the Hill fairly soon, being asked precise who, when, and where questions. Questions that he won't be able to answer without incriminating his boss (and, possibly himself).
The bigger question is Hillary! She has some culpability here, esp. since these were her people, and security in Libya in general, and Benghazi in particular, was greatly reduced in late summer, maybe a month before the attacks. There is apparently a pretty good paper trail here, with a number of those involved, starting with Ambassador Stevens, protesting. It appears to have been done for political reasons, and that could stink up any further political ambitions for her (but, then, she is a Clinton).
You guys are missing the point. If the gun-running story is true, then it is highly likely that the Russians got wind of it before the Republicans did. I saw a story a few weeks ago from Russian press about supposed US supplied weapons being found by Russian commanders in Syria. That's a key bit that is being missed here.
So, Russia figures out that Benghazi is the source of arms supplying their man's enemies in Syria. They mostly look the other way as long as they are small arms. Suddenly there are heavier weapons showing up. Putin calls Obama. "Stop that, now." he says.
Obama fouls his britches and calls up Patraeus. "You gotta stop sending weapons through Benghazi". Stevens is sent to meet with the principals to communicate the change of direction. The jihadists get wind of it and plan an attack as payback.
Stevens shows up. They attack and kill him, then storm the compound and loot all the weapons.
Obama sees this happening and says "Shit! If I save them, the gun running is exposed. If I don't save them, maybe I can still salvage something out of this." Two days later Valerie Jarrett tells him "blame it on the video."
And your friend at CentCom (and what is exactly his job there) would have special knowledge of Africom activities exactly how?
Do you think the people in charge of Egypt aren't talking to and sharing assets with the people in charge of Libya?
And if the answer to my previous question is that "he was digging around on the SIPRNet to see what he could find about Bengazi", then he is in deep shit if he gets caught.
I'll be sure to pass along your deep and heartfelt concern.
Since he's been through hundreds of unsavory actions, to hear him talk about this one in the manner he does leads me to think there's a Bay of Pigs size cover up going on. If so, Obama would have been much better off to immediately borrow from Kennedy: "What matters is only one fact, I am the responsible officer of the government."
There never has been a good explanation as to why the ambassador was in Benghazi
He apparently met with a Turkish diplomat at the consulate, with whom he is seen, on a video, saying good night to outside the consulate before he retired ~ 8:45 pm, IIRC the details correctly.
Another possibility is that General Ham was originally told to wait to which he replied, "I'm going unless you order me otherwise" and left the room. Then the [panicked] order came through to "stand down."
In other words, General Ham forced the White House to make a decision.
Cosmic Conservative said...
You guys are missing the point.
We're not missing the point. Just because you can think of a reason why something could have ocurred doesn't mean it did happen that way. Try testing a theory that doesn't include Obama intentionally allowing people to die, which is unlikely in the extreme. People generally understand life and death as a line not to cross, plus so many people would know it would come out eventually. It's just not likely. Asserting it without evidence just makes the entire issue easy to dismiss.
He misjudged the situation, not believing it was as deadly as it was. It's hardly surprising, a staple of leftist dognma is minimizing the malevolence of everyone except Republicans. So he reacted minimally. In the back of his mind he's likely thinking that even if they're captured we can negotiate their release, just like we did in Tehran.
By the time he realizes circumstances are more deadly than he realized he's locked into a response and it's too late to take the additional steps that might have mattered.
It's a huge mistake, and misleading the public was another. Maybe there is a clandestine operation going on, either the guns or something we don't know about yet. But none of that locks Obama into intentionally letting our guys die. What he did do was bad enough. We shouldn't be embellishing.
Roger J. said...
Damn--and did I mention that General Ham happens to be African American?
Sarcasm, right? Otherwise General Carter Ham will be very surprised at this news. General Kip Ward, an African American, was replaced by Ham in March 2011.
Damn....I didn't see the Drill SGTt post at the 200 break. Oh well....sorry for the repeat.
What Roger meant was that Gen Ham is an AFRICOM American.
Via Insty:
AFRICOM CHIEF GENERAL HAM IS LEAVING: But the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, claims Ham’s departure is “part of a routine succession” planned since July. This is in contrast to rumors that General Ham had recommended (and was prepared to use) military force to help rescue Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues at the consulate in Benghazi.
--There never has been a good explanation as to why the ambassador was in Benghazi
He apparently met with a Turkish diplomat at the consulate, with whom he is seen, on a video, saying good night to outside the consulate before he retired ~ 8:45 pm, IIRC the details correctly.
Far away from Tripoli, why couldn't they meet there?
AFRICOM CHIEF GENERAL HAM IS LEAVING: But the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey, claims Ham’s departure is “part of a routine succession” planned since July...
Right. That's why Secretary of Defense Panetta announced this at a meeting about military service member finances chaired by Holly Petraeus, newly minted SES with CFPB, coincidently the wife Gen. David Petraeus, Director CIA.
This shit is crazy. Almost beyond scripting.
Inga said...
The sharks smell blood in the water and they want their dinner now! They don't care that the blood is rancid, chummy crap, they would rather eat that than wait for a fresh meat.
Sharks are very stupid.
And here is another one of your dimwitted attempts at analogy. Sharks are by-in-large instinctual animals that rely solely on their senses to eat. That's what they do. The 3 basic actions of most of anything not a human being. They eat, they breed, they breath. Everything else is meaningless to them, therefore to call them stupid is idiocy, which makes you stupid, but we already knew that. Try again.
And, if they needed more intel, they most likely could have gotten it (for one thing, my memory is that RF-4s were flown out of Italy, which isn't that far away for a supersonic jet - I am sure that their replacements are not that far away either).
F4s are the noisiest jet in our (former) inventory. Those J 79s would make every terrorist in Libya a candidate for hearing aids, if nothing else. All they would have to do is go supersonic over the consulate and the fight would have been over.
"A brave man dies only once, a coward dies many times." Obama will die many times before he is through.
Inga said...
And sharks don't chew on their meat and savor it, they basically swallow everything whole.
Because that's what they are built to do, stupid. How the fuck did you ever make it as a nurse? Seriously.
I was a nurse to humans, not sharks, that's how.
And psssst, my little story is an allegory.
The official explanation for the ambassador in Benghazi was to be present for the opening or building of an education center in honor of a local who helped save an American pilot. He did meet with a Turkish diplomat that night, but no indication that was the reason for the trip (yet).
Don't count Hillary out. Don't you see the story developing here? While Obama dithered and did not send military, Hillary acted and sent her little state department security detail from Tripoli to save the day. It is a little vague as to what they did (they were stuck at the Benghazi airport without transporation for a while), but ulimtately they rode in with some Libyan militia to "liberate" the compound. At some point post election, we will hear this story (there might even be some truth in it). Translated, she answered the 3:00 a.m. call and Obama did not.
Are you autistic by any chance Methadras? That would explain so much.
I sometimes wonder if Inga is just here trolling for the functional equivalent of a new Meade--she sure keeps circling in the landing pattern, lol.
Virgil, funny but no need. I'm well taken care of.
Actually, Inga, although you are obviously intelligent I stand my earlier description I made of you on a previous thread wherin I likened you to those deluded "true believer" party apparatchiks under Stalin who, when arrested in the great purge, tried in one of his show-trials and sentenced to death walked out of the court-room to their demise with their death sentence personally signed by Stalin in their hands muttering: "It has all been a mistake! He has been mis-informed! If only I could talk to him and explain he surely would understand!"
Such mis-placed loyalty was a pathetic sight then and your blind loyalty to the left is equally a pathetic sight now.. To use an oft-used Communist phrase "rip the blindfold from your eyes," Inga, and smell the proverbial coffee!
PS: Where o where is Ritmo in all of this? I MISS him so..lol
Inga said...
I was a nurse to humans, not sharks, that's how.
And psssst, my little story is an allegory.
Sigh. For your little shark story to be an allegory, it would require much deeper introspective comparative analysis to your actual assumption (and stupidly so) that republicans are sharks that smell blood. They clearly are not and you are clearly incapable of that level of brains. Thus it is a metaphor.
Blogger Inga said...
Are you autistic by any chance Methadras? That would explain so much.
No. Try again with your nonsensical moronic psychological faux diagnosis. I just want to stop insulting dumb people by calling you dumb.
virgil xenophon said...
I sometimes wonder if Inga is just here trolling for the functional equivalent of a new Meade--she sure keeps circling in the landing pattern, lol.
10/29/12 6:43 PM
Blogger Inga said...
Virgil, funny but no need. I'm well taken care of.
She's a leftard attention whore with delusional fantasies of being well taken care of by Obama. Political jungle swamp fever.
My dear man,Virgil.
I am loyal to my personal moral code, my children and grandchildren and those whom I love. I don't love any politician or political ideology. I am liberal only because it matches my own world view more than conservatism. I am a Democrat only because it reflects a more liberal philosophy.
But my loyalty is not given arbitrarily.
Meth, it's OK if you are autistic, we are all God's children.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Wait. Someone left four American heros to the sharks to die?
That's not the story I heard. The one I heard was that they were left to die in an embassy. Yes, there was a lot of blood. That part's right. That some animal was mindlessly sacrificing them to it's own survival, yea, that seems logical knowing how some animals act.
Did sharks have something to do with that Fast and Furious thing that also included a lot of blood. The media doesn't seem to be interested in any of these shark stories. Maybe I can get some info on Animal Planet.
A policy of not putting troops in harm's way without full intelligence would be a certain way to lose a war.
Panetta was retired and did not want to come back to Washington anyway, so he might not be happy to leave with this stain on him, but he can take it as a another lesson that no good deed goes unpunished.
I am thinking that the White House reaction to this mess would kind of fit with their expecting something else to happen and having their story set up for that, and then not being able or willing to change with events when they unfolded otherwise - unexpectedly.
Speaking of Animal Planet, I love that show about the creepy crawly creatures that live in humans, like the worm that lived in some guys head. He could see it crawling over his eyeball, or that story in which the guy kept seeing some crawly slimy thing dart in and out of his nose, or the lady that had a big bug in her ear and kept hearing it crawling around in there.
Inga said...
My dear man,Virgil.
I am loyal to my personal moral code, my children and grandchildren and those whom I love. I don't love any politician or political ideology. I am liberal only because it matches my own world view more than conservatism. I am a Democrat only because it reflects a more liberal philosophy.
But my loyalty is not given arbitrarily.
Translation: Moral relativist that is a member of a party that reflects a more liberal philosophy that she'd really rather hide, aka, a fascist.
Meth, it's OK if you are autistic, we are all God's children.
What part of NO did you not understand. Was it the N or the O, you stupid cow?
The name of the show is "Monsters Inside Me". Which I'm sure has already been used as a porn title by someone.
No need to be ashamed of it Meth.
Heh, Bagoh.
Dear Inga,
Romney said that he wanted to arm pro-Western rebels
Um... I'm pretty sure there is no such thing. Which begs the question.... Why the HELL are we even involved in the Middle East?
And about the Gen ham thing. Note that this is breaking AFTER it was formally announced that Gen Ham would eventually be leaving that command. Well, that's convenient. One could falsify a story saying something happened to Ham, and, oh look! He's resigning. Of course, there is no word as to why he's leaving, or even whether or not it's his choice because of the chaos of dealing with this administration, a move by the administration, or he simply wants to move on. Regardless. He is still in command until the Senate chooses a replacement.
The Frontpage article links to WND. Any source that uses WND as a source, without independent verification of allegations, is not a very trustworthy site. The Washington Times isn't much better. I got burned by them a couple of times, including the story where they claimed to have proof of Iraqi WMD's being trafficked into Syria in the first year of the war.
Leave no man behind.
Unless his survival threatens TeH Narrative (tm).
We are in a very, very sad place in history.
PS. Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the President by any means. i just can't stand when stupid unverified rumors drive a crowd into frenzy.
As far as the Benghazi mess goes.... Sticking to the verifiable facts is quite damning enough, thank you.
Way to go Bruce Hayden.
{clapping}
That nod to Bruce was for the 4:21 post specifically. Still catching up.
Seeing Red said...
--There never has been a good explanation as to why the ambassador was in Benghazi
JAL writ: He apparently met with a Turkish diplomat at the consulate, with whom he is seen, on a video, saying good night to outside the consulate before he retired ~ 8:45 pm, IIRC the details correctly.
Red State writ: Far away from Tripoli, why couldn't they meet there?
10/29/12 6:21 PM
====================
http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-events-comments-surrounding-benghazi-205332708.html
The State Department provided the timeline for Sept. 10-11 with local times in Benghazi; the remaining events were gathered from other AP sources.
Sept. 10-11
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens arrives in Benghazi and holds meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spends the night, and for the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks holds meetings inside the compound only. It is an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades. There are four buildings in the compound. Five diplomatic security officers are present, along with four members of a local militia deployed by Libya's government to provide added security.
Around 8:30 p.m.
Stevens finishes his final meeting of the day and escorts a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the consulate. The situation is calm. There are no protests.
Around 9:40 p.m.
Agents hear loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate.....
Kansas City said...
By the way, Panetta is obviously toast after the election.
Doesn't Panetta mean "little bread" in Italian? It won't take much to toast him.
Cosmic Conservative said...
You guys are missing the point. If the gun-running story is true, then it is highly likely that the Russians got wind of it before the Republicans did. I saw a story a few weeks ago from Russian press about supposed US supplied weapons being found by Russian commanders in Syria. That's a key bit that is being missed here.
So, Russia figures out that Benghazi is the source of arms supplying their man's enemies in Syria. They mostly look the other way as long as they are small arms. Suddenly there are heavier weapons showing up. Putin calls Obama. "Stop that, now." he says.
Obama fouls his britches and calls up Patraeus. "You gotta stop sending weapons through Benghazi". Stevens is sent to meet with the principals to communicate the change of direction. The jihadists get wind of it and plan an attack as payback.
Stevens shows up. They attack and kill him, then storm the compound and loot all the weapons.
Obama sees this happening and says "Shit! If I save them, the gun running is exposed. If I don't save them, maybe I can still salvage something out of this." Two days later Valerie Jarrett tells him "blame it on the video."
The gun running story is still that, a story. There hasn't been a hint or a mention of it outside the blogosphere. Beyond that, even if it were true and let's say it is, then clearly the same parameters of this story still stand and are made even more chilling if Obama willingly sacrificed these guys to hide another Fast and Furious in the ME as a function of helping Syrian Resistance. Think about that. The alternatives beyond that alone are even more terrifying.
If we abandoned those men after their calls for aid, and it seams as though somebody did, the impact of the leadership failure will haunt the Army for years. I think that the professionals understand that.
Drill SGT: Thanks for writing from this point of view. I'm a civilian and don't know, but I worry about the morale of our military.
Leaving all politics aside, it strikes me as ghastly to leave people behind, when there are, apparently, many options to help them.
Can I ask a civilian type question? If planes took off from Italy and it took them about 2 hours to get there (which is what I have read) could they have flown in circles for a while they waited for "better" intelligence?
The gunships they have talked about, some kind of a ?-130 can they, if need be, resupplied with fuel in midair?
"The gun running story is still that, a story. There hasn't been a hint or a mention of it outside the blogosphere."
No. Go back a bit further in your research. Of course once you get to that point you will be wanting to seek out why.
"Can I ask a civilian type question? If planes took off from Italy and it took them about 2 hours to get there (which is what I have read) could they have flown in circles for a while they waited for "better" intelligence? "
There was no need to wait for better intelligence - that meme is bogus. Consider that Woods, a 20-year veteran in the Nave SEALS was on-sight, a drone was overhead, State department personnel (more than 20) were on-sight... If Panetta does not think he can rely on accounts made by Woods and the direct video feed (which they were receiving) who or what would be better? I hope he doesn't think he needs wait for a live CNN broadcast from the battlefront. The claim that they needed more intel is completely bogus.
Look, sportsfans, the bottom line is this: There is, as of yet NO explanation or combination of explanations yet put forward by ANY member of the Obama Administration that logically hangs together. Why? Because they can't. Period. Until the true facts come out ANY logical even half-way informed speculation is equally valid unless proven otherwise. Lucy Ricardo was right, Obama has a LOT of "splainin' " to do...but he can't. So STONEWALL CITY time--until the bitter end when it's the proverbial "who do you believe? Me or your lyin' eyes? time..TRUST ME, Obama WILL NEVER come clean...as he cannot defend the indefensible--either from a psychological, ethical or a political viewpoint. And as a sociopath he has the the psychological ability to coolly, gallingly brazen it out, aided by being secure in the knowledge that the Elephants will never summon the mental/political courage to gird their loins to even hold impeachment hearings in the House for fear of being tagged with the racist epitaph and losing the independent/moderate vote for all future elections... combine all this with the fact that their will be NO public pressure brought to bear from the MSM concerning this matter. "If a tree falls in the woods..." Bengazhai will go down the memory-hole for all practical purposes. And, truth to tell, half the nation would just as soon not face the terrible implications of Obama's actions. They'd rather--will be quite content--to execute the Ostrich Plan instead..
As someone posted here previously, over at the Daily Kos the kiddies consider this all a non-event..
Of course I wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but if I was anywhere near undecided, his refusal to clear the air on this would do it for me. It leaves you with no choice but to assume he did something terrible, that is too dangerous to his reelection to admit to, or he has some innate inability to be open and honest to the American people about very important things. I happen to think it's both, but undecideds have got to look at this very seriously.
Even those already prepared to vote for him need to reconsider what they will feel about their vote afterward when the truth comes out. Obama is telling you with his silence that it won't be good.
As for you on here trying to defend and deflect, aren't you embarrassed to admit that you don't want to know, or at least not in time to inform your vote. The President knows what happened, but he will not tell you. He wants you to make a mistake on election day.
"I am a Democrat only because it reflects a more liberal philosophy."
And your lack of economic knowledge ?
Michael K, do you think this nation would be getter served with just one party?
The Republican party? Maybe a few Libertarians thrown in?
Inga seems to be missing the point.
Obama is now saying that yhere may have been some mistakes made and they may have been made by staffers. He is going to need one gigantic bus to fit everyone under. I have no doubt some of his true believers will go willingly to further the cause.
John said...
"The gun running story is still that, a story. There hasn't been a hint or a mention of it outside the blogosphere."
No. Go back a bit further in your research. Of course once you get to that point you will be wanting to seek out why.
Okay, I went back and looked on my usual haunts. Speculative questions as to gun running are abound, but that's all they are is questions. In any event, as I said prior even if it is true, then the ramifications are even worse than previously imagined.
" do you think this nation would be better served with just one party?"
More parties is better, as long I don't have to buy all the beer, and it's not a damned sausage fest.
Inga said...
Michael K, do you think this nation would be getter served with just one party?
How do you make that type of inference? He's attacking your lack of knowledge of economics as a function of your insipid ideology and then you ask him if the nation would be better served with one party. I'm looking for a bridge to connect these two sentiments with, but I'm coming up with nothing. Can you help we smarter people how your level of stupid works please?
I'm betting that the White House creative writing team is mad at work on it's 57th draft of what happened, but in the end Panetta is gonna take the dive on the hand grenade.
Inga: I am liberal only because it matches my own world view more than conservatism. I am a Democrat only because it reflects a more liberal philosophy
Bullshit, Inga. You sold liberalism out when you defended arresting that filmmaker. You're not a liberal. You wouldn't know liberal if it bit you on the ass.
You're a statist.
Then again, perhaps the stonewalling is because Panetta, a man with a long proud career, is just refusing to ruin it all by taking the blame for such an atrocity if he didn't do it, just to save a man he does not respect. If Obama did this, would you take the bullet for him? He's probably not even going to be President much longer.
For those who still may vote for Obama, consider this: there will be a Republican House and, if Obama is reelected, the House will impeach him for Benghazi. The mainstream media can't stop that.
Obama may or may not be forced to resign, but meanwhle the nation will be tied up for six months or more in the process. It will be terribly damaging for all.
Of course, Obama could circumvent this by coming clean. But he won't. If he could have, he would have done so by now. Whatever he is covering up, he is covering up for serious reasons.
That's what a vote for Obama means next week.
I am intrigued by language shifts. The modern "liberal" is only called a "liberal" because the word "progressive" fell into disfavor in the past. Now "liberal" has also fallen into disfavor and "progressive" is being resurrected again. I expect that will probably cycle around again and again as "liberal/progressive" policies prove to be flawed at the root and end up giving us politicians like Obama, Carter, Pelosi and Reid ad infinitum.
But the fact that modern collectivist, redistributionist neo-fascists have the effrontery to call themselves "liberal" is a major irritation of mine since the modern "liberal" has no freaking concept of what "classical liberal" actually means and would not recognize one if they saw one.
The modern "conservative" is in general far more "liberal" than the modern "liberal".
Jason said...
Bullshit, Inga. You sold liberalism out when you defended arresting that filmmaker. You're not a liberal. You wouldn't know liberal if it bit you on the ass.
You're a fascist.
Fixed for truth.
Cosmic Conservative said...
I am intrigued by language shifts. The modern "liberal" is only called a "liberal" because the word "progressive" fell into disfavor in the past. Now "liberal" has also fallen into disfavor and "progressive" is being resurrected again. I expect that will probably cycle around again and again as "liberal/progressive" policies prove to be flawed at the root and end up giving us politicians like Obama, Carter, Pelosi and Reid ad infinitum.
But the fact that modern collectivist, redistributionist neo-fascists have the effrontery to call themselves "liberal" is a major irritation of mine since the modern "liberal" has no freaking concept of what "classical liberal" actually means and would not recognize one if they saw one.
The modern "conservative" is in general far more "liberal" than the modern "liberal".
Most certainly true. That's why I'm a classic liberal.
Nichole said...
"Not to mention something like they intend to print things that allows them to guide people to draw conclusions they want to have...."
I made a very similar post on my facebook page about this last Sunday's Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle news coverage. Benghazi? What? Dead ambassador? Huh? Not newsworthy.
http://www.eaglespeak.us/2012/10/un-courage-under-fire.html#links
is well worth reading if you want to understand how the military, and that includes AD, retired, veteran's, and family, feel about abandoning personnel under fire.
All this prattling about classical liberal, who the fuck cares?
I doubt Meth ever read any John Locke. He is a classical ass.
I know what people who think like me are and is not facist, you folks call us facist one day, socialist the next, or even use the two terms in the same sentence. Labels are just insults to be used arbitrarily to some conservatives.
you folks call us facist one day, socialist the next, or even use the two terms in the same sentence.
that's because you're a fascist socialist and stupid too if you think they are mutually exclusive
I doubt Inga is either a fascist or a socialist.
I think she simply lacks any real understanding of economics. She bases her political beliefs on what sounds nice, without any idea of what the real-world ramifications will be. That's not too uncommon.
Another view from somebody with more connections than I have:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi/?page=all#pagebreak
"Somebody high up in the administration made the decision that no assistance (outside our Tripoli embassy) would be provided, and let our people be killed."
Admiral Lyons (USN-ret)
Meth:
Adm Lyons (USN-Ret) has stated publicly that weapons were being run out of Benghazi.
Check out Drill Sgt's link,it should be there.
I am surprised you miss that element of the story. His statement has been out there for a couple days.
The modern progressive/liberal has no idea what "fascist" means any more than they know what "Nazi" means. To them they are merely pejoratives, and since they are "bad" they MUST by definition apply to conservatives since conservatives are "the enemy" to them.
The word "fascist" was coined to describe a government that creates a collaboration between big government and corporations. Many people today are using the words "crony capitalism" to describe a similar concept. But there is no need to do so since "fascist" works just fine.
Obama is a fascist. His auto bailout, student loan takeover, health care takeover, and other attempts to merge corporate and government agencies together are classical fascist efforts.
Socialism and fascism are orthogonal political concepts. Mussolini was a fascist socialist. So is Obama.
That's just definitional. It's not meant to be pejorative. It's not my fault Obama has chosen ideological positions that are in disfavor because of historical events.
Just for clarity: "fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Italics mine.
The "severe economic and social regimentation" is critical here, since the rest of the definition is functionally indistinguishable from any other totalitarian system. It's what makes "fascism" a specific concept. The practical implementation of that economic and social regimentation is that the government controls the economy through control of the corporations which form the basis for the economy. When dictators start nationalizing industries, that's the "marker" that says "this is fascism."
Like what Obama has been doing for the past 3.5 years, and intends to do more of in the next 4.
Inga: "And psssst, my little story is an allegory."
Pssst: It's correctly called a metaphor,but carry on.
Psssst...no its an allegory, a metaphor is a shorter phrase, mine is a story.
I think the readers of althouse are a bit better than the usual republican stuff, I take back what I said earlier. Normally I hear whargable Obama killed the ambassador because traitor.
It's nice to hear theories that Obama is merely an incompetent idiot rather than a deliberate traitor who wants to surrender to the NWO.
Allegories are essentially metaphors turned into little stories...
bonerici, I don't think Obama is "incompetent". I think he's ideologically constrained to a dangerous degree. Ideologues make poor decisions not through stupidity as much as they make them because their mental processing filters only allow certain options to be considered in the first place.
It is unfortunate that using literal, accurate terminology to describe people's ideological positions has become so emotionally charged that you can't even use proper terms in a discussion.
When it comes to politics, it's all a matter of degree. Obama is at core a socialist. He believes and has expressed his belief in the ascendency of the collective over the individual, and the need to redistribute existing wealth instead of focusing on creating new wealth.
However, that does not mean that Obama is comparable to Mao or Stalin. It is possible to be a "kinder and gentler" socialist. Just as it is possible to be a "kinder and gentler" capitalist.
The issue is the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of a person's beliefs. When someone believes that the individual owes the results of his efforts to the collective, that is a socialist, collectivist impulse.
When someone believes that the government can COMPEL an individual to give up some or all of his wealth to others, that is a totalitarian impulse.
The two can be addressed separately.
I would like to say that Obama is socialistic in nature but is not totalitarian.
Then I see that he has utilized executive powers to enforce unconstitutional decrees at roughly ten times the rate of previous Presidents and I have to go "hmmmm...."
mine is a story.
Story? With a beginning, middle, and end?
No, sharks smelling blood is an idiom.
Livermoron said...
Meth:
Adm Lyons (USN-Ret) has stated publicly that weapons were being run out of Benghazi.
Check out Drill Sgt's link,it should be there.
I am surprised you miss that element of the story. His statement has been out there for a couple days.
Thanks for the post info. I actually missed the Washington Times. I hadn't gone there in a while. A week infact and I missed it on my blog list (it's fairly huge) to go check out (not enough time yesterday). Well, all I have to say like I said yesterday that if this pans out to be true and I have zero reason to doubt Adm. Lyons, then this is even worse than I suspected. There can be no doubt now that Obama is a traitor in the face of his treachery that facilitated his cowardice not to act so he could hide Fast and Furious in the middle-east.
There is no way the leftards can overlook this unless they totally cement their willful blindness in zealotry to this coward in chief. If they do, then they are just as culpable as he is, in my opinion and that would only reinforce what I've said all along. The leftards on this blog, in continuing supporting this president in light of this story are unamerican, unpatriotic scum. They would do best to disavow him immediately, but I suspect they won't and they can't. They've so heavily invested their psyche's, their emotions, and their mental well-beings on the fortunes on this stain of a human being we have as a president. May he and they know utter and eternal hell.
First some moral conservatives here want to kill we liberals off, now they doom us to eternal hell, all because of .......politics!
Weirdos.
Actually, the desire that you and people like you burn in Hell isn't based on politics, it is based on the personal belief system that you have revealed to us here.
It isn't based on hatred of the Other. It is specifically based on hatred of You.
It is an instinctive reaction. Like cringing at snakes.
I put in a metaphor for your edification, Inga. Can you spot it?
No hintssss everyone!
First some moral conservatives here want to kill we liberals off, now they doom us to eternal hell, all because of .......politics!
Not me, toots. (It's "us", by the way. Not "we".) I just want you to read an economics book.
It is now clear:
1. President Affirmative Action wanted those Americans in the embassy to die, by any means necessary, including firing people who tried to save their lives.
2. President Affirmative Action violated the First Amendment and arrested a man innocent of the acts the President accused him of, and showed the international stage that he would arrest and detain people for free speech.
And where is Inga the Lying Obama Whore's defense?
Poopie,
My son in law gave his copy of Capitalism and Freedom, I read it. I'm still a liberal, albeit a social liberal for you purists.
Again, how boring it would be of we all thought alike.
And are you sure? I think it's we, not us.
I swear I didn't do that on purpose, that was autocorrect!
@Inga the Lying Obama Whore:
Again, how boring it would be of we all thought alike.
---"C'mon, guys; it's ok that I hate human life and freedom, because Diversity is better than life and freedom. Jeez, relax, and get in the fucking train."
You lefty scum are just parodies of yourselves at this point.
So Inga the lYing Obama Whore...
You defended Obama's destruction of free speech when he arrested the filmmaker. Because Obama said the film caused the embassy attack, you claimed it was justified.
Now you know Obama lied, and knew all along that the film had nothing to do with the embassy riots.
Do you still think Obama was justified in shredding the 1st Amendment?
Inga said...
First some moral conservatives here want to kill we liberals off, now they doom us to eternal hell, all because of .......politics!
Weirdos.
Leftism as an ideology is a deathly detriment to society, as witnessed by another example of it in Benghazi, and to the world as a whole. Seeing it become extinct is one of my main objectives. The fact that you are one of it's adherents doesn't absolve you of it afflictions upon society and your need to reaffirm and defend it makes you directly culpable in it's application implied or otherwise. I hate your ideology and it's belief structure. I have zero tolerance for it and what it has done to humanity, Americans, and America at large. It is a poisonous cancer on the face of the earth. You can call yourself the pink fairy godmother for all I care, but the facts, as you present them are clear in this. You follow an ideology of death and totalitarianism via fascism. You've espoused your fascism within the larger context of this story. Hence the charges of unpatriotic, unamerican scum that you are. The fact that I wish you a speedy and horrible demise is because one less leftist on earth is a good thing. It isn't because of politics, it is because of ideology. You are so woefully stupid and confused that I have to constantly correct you on these facts. Ideology is not politics. You and your ideology are the problem.
I'd take the worst conservativism has to offer any day of the week then the best leftism has to offer at any time. That is the thrust of my argument. You can cry victim all you want, but the facts against you don't counter it. Want to scream martyr and victim, by all means do it since you are already very good at it. You will still be gone and the world will be a better place for it. Most people will never voice what I do because they can't. I understand that. I don't have such reservations in the face of the type of evil that you represent.
Oh look Meth! Your doppelgänger is here.
Or....could it be? Nah, but they do sound so much alike, uncanny.
@Inga the lying Obama Whore:
Now that you know Obama lied about his justification in arresting the filmmaker...
Do you still believe Obama was justified in arresting him?
So you think the sentence:
"I think they are here to kill we."
sounds right?
If you hire a lawyer you might be able to get a refund from your ESL classes.
And, please excuse my ignorance, but what is a 'social liberal'? A liberal who likes to party? Are you trying to imply you are a fiscal conservative?
Are there unsocial liberals?
Or did you mean it as a metaphor?
Your politics strike me as situational. Your ethics even more so. But I can only judge you on what you reveal about yourself. I am sure I am not getting the full picture.
So I've got that going for me.
Which is nice.
Yes, you are ignorant
Ever heard of T.H Green, L.T Hobhouse, or John A. Hobson?
So you point me at a Wiki article and mention the names of a couple guys pictured.
Thanks for that.
Per the article, this describes social liberalism:
Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.
That sure ain't what you espouse, sweetie.
But i am glad that I got you to at least attempt to think.
Did it hurt?
Methadras said...
Inga said...
First some moral conservatives here want to kill we liberals off, now they doom us to eternal hell, all because of .......politics!
Ever the drama queen.
Who said, "Leck mich im arsch" ? I bet you know that one.
Hey Inga, I brought that up yesterday with you. That's where you learned it first.
My ain't you cle-ver!
hahaha
Please continue espousing your belief system "based upon the good of the community being harmonious with the freedom of the individual.
That's so yoooou, baby!
I bet that videomaker feels your love all the way in solitary.
No, no need to ask. You are not delusional.
No, not at all.
Post a Comment